AMIT KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has prayed inter alia for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dtd. 21/3/2022 passed in SAR Revision Case No. 91 of 2008, primarily on the ground that the order was passed in favour of a death person and no substitution was carried out.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his predecessor in interest (i.e. Daroga Singh) and the father of Michael Munda, namely, Nathineal Munda were embroiled in a title dispute, being Title Suit No. 338 of 1966, which ended in a compromise. In terms of the compromise, Daroga Singh sold the scheduled property to the father of the petitioner vide a registered sale deed dtd. 11/8/1983. After the execution of the registered sale deed, the father of the petitioner constructed a pucca house over the scheduled land and started to reside there.